Browse Now . . .

“Stolen Concept,” Fallacy of

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of
using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an
earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in
mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to know that one is
stealing. As they use effects while denying causes, so they use our concepts
while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.

When modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary
choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged
axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply
and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to
negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of
unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts.

They proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion,
and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves,
that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as
“motion.”

. . . They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists
but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the
concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of
identity no such concept as “change” is possible.

. . . “You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,”
they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence,
consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to
know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned
to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms
or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is
right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How
can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of
what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of
“error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth
were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be
meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we
cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is
unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or
apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of
“insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of
being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not
being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X”
stands for nothing.